Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Albuquergue Et Al Schizoptera Zygophleps
Albuquergue Et Al Schizoptera Zygophleps
Albuquergue Et Al Schizoptera Zygophleps
1163/1876312X-bja10029
Abstract
Schizoptera Fieber is a monophyletic and the largest genus of minute litter bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera:
Dipsocoromorpha). Its current concept is supported by a recent molecular phylogeny and comprises
nearly 90 described extant and two fossil species divided into four subgenera: Schizoptera (Cantharocoris),
Schizoptera (Odontorhagus), Schizoptera (Schizoptera) and Schizoptera (Zygophleps). We here taxonomi-
cally revise the subgenus Schizoptera (Zygophleps), which so far contains Schizoptera unica McAtee &
Malloch, 1925 from Guatemala and Schizoptera corallia Emsley, 1969, Schizoptera simla Emsley, 1969,
and Schizoptera ultima Emsley, 1969 from Trinidad. The subgenus is diagnosed by the unique triangular
shape of the posterior membranal cell. The following 36 species are here described: Schizoptera aculeata
sp.n., Schizoptera applanata sp.n., Schizoptera bella sp.n., Schizoptera biancae sp.n., Schizoptera cassiae
sp.n., Schizoptera confusa sp.n., Schizoptera costarriquenha sp.n., Schizoptera cuspida sp.n., Schizoptera
ecuadoriana sp.n., Schizoptera elegantissima sp.n., Schizoptera emsleyi sp.n., Schizoptera erosa sp.n.,
Schizoptera erwini sp.n., Schizoptera falcata sp.n., Schizoptera familia sp.n., Schizoptera furcata sp.n.,
Schizoptera fuscodorsata sp.n., Schizoptera hirsuta sp.n., Schizoptera inaequalis sp.n., Schizoptera inca sp.n.,
Schizoptera kayi sp.n., Schizoptera knyshovi sp.n., Schizoptera magnifica sp.n., Schizoptera mallochi sp.n.,
Schizoptera mcateei sp.n., Schizoptera orellanensis sp.n., Schizoptera paraensis sp.n., Schizoptera peruviana
sp.n., Schizoptera pichincha sp.n., Schizoptera pinduca sp.n., Schizoptera prima sp.n., Schizoptera priva
sp.n., Schizoptera ramosa sp.n., Schizoptera solitaria sp.n., Schizoptera speira sp.n., and Schizoptera stricta
sp.n. The majority of species herein described were collected in Brazil, Costa Rica, and Ecuador, expand-
ing the known distribution of the subgenus. We provide diagnoses, descriptions, photographs of habitus
and subgenital plates, line drawings of diagnostic male genitalic features, and a distribution map. A key to
species based on males is also presented.
Keywords
Hemiptera; Neotropical region; new species; Schizopterinae; taxonomy
ZooBank: http://zoobank.org/D1D2E0A6-84E6-4855-AF29-2F7F9F0BB20A
Introduction
The cosmopolitan true bug infraorder Dipsocoromorpha, usually referred as the min-
ute litter bugs, is one of the smallest and least well documented taxa of Heteroptera,
comprising about 430 species divided into six families (Schuh & Weirauch 2020).
Historically, this group was composed of the families Ceratocombidae, Dipsocoridae,
Hypsipterygidae, Schizopteridae, and Stemmocryptidae. Based on recent molecular and
morphological phylogenetic analyses, Trichotonanninae that was previously regarded as a
ceratocombid subfamily, are now treated at the family level (Knyshov et al. 2020).
Schizopteridae is the best known dipsocoromorphan family composed of approx-
imately 360 species divided into around 60 genera (Weirauch & Fernandes 2015;
Weirauch et al. 2018; Almeida et al. 2019). Specimens are tiny (~1–2 mm) and typ-
ically found in cryptic microhabitats such as leaf litter, low herbaceous vegetation,
under bark of fallen trees, and in the canopy (Emsley 1969; Weirauch & Fernandes
2015; Weirauch & Štys 2014). Species in several genera are attracted to light traps but
can also be abundant in bulk samples of other types of passive traps, including leaf
litter extraction and Malaise traps. Since specimens are very small and require special-
ized curation, most have remained uncurated, making them inaccessible for species
discovery and documentation.
During the past few years, the Weirauch laboratory has retrieved, mostly from bulk
samples, more than 10,000 schizopterid specimens from numerous institutions around
the world. More than 3,300 of these specimens belong to the genus Schizoptera Fieber,
1860 (Leon & Weirauch 2016a), the largest dipsocoromorphan genus worldwide, and
the dominant group of schizopterids in the New World.
The current concept of Schizoptera comprises nearly 90 described extant and two
fossil species divided into four subgenera: S. (Cantharocoris), S. (Odontorhagus), S.
(Schizoptera), and S. (Zygophleps) (Leon & Weirauch 2016a; Leon & Weirauch 2016b;
Leon & Weirauch 2017). Leon & Weirauch (2017) proposed the first phylogenetic
hypothesis for Schizoptera and related genera based on molecular data. The results
showed that the previous concepts of the genus used by McAtee & Malloch (1925) and
Emsley (1969) were polyphyletic. Therefore, Leon & Weirauch (2016a, 2017) raised
Kophaegis McAtee & Malloch and Orthorhagus McAtee & Malloch to genus level,
and synonymized S. (Lophopleurum) with S. (Cantharocoris), rendering Schizoptera
monophyletic. Moreover, Leon & Weirauch (2017) showed that the subgenera
S. (Cantharocoris), S. (Odontorhagus), and S. (Zygophleps) are monophyletic whereas
S. (Schizoptera) is polyphyletic and highlighted the importance of taxonomic revisions
across the genus.
The subgenus S. (Zygophleps) is currently composed of S. (Zygophleps) unica McAtee
& Malloch, 1925, S. (Zygophleps) simla Emsley, 1969, S. (Zygophleps) corallia Emsley,
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 3
1969 and S. (Zygophleps) ultima Emsley, 1969. It is only known from Guatemala and
Trinidad. The subgenus is easily distinguished from other Schizoptera subgenera by the
unique triangular posterior membranal cell. More than 200 specimens of Schizoptera
(Zygophleps) from several countries including Brazil, Costa Rica, and Ecuador have
become available as part of the above-mentioned bulk sample sorting efforts, and addi-
tional specimens were collected in the field in the Brazilian Amazon by the first author.
Preliminary examination suggested that this material contained several undescribed
species; similar to other projects focused on Schizopteridae, it only became clear after
careful examination of specimens that this relatively small number of specimens repre-
sent a ten-fold increase of described species in this subgenus.
We here taxonomically revise the subgenus S. (Zygophleps), redescribe previously
known species and describe 36 species as new. Since species of this subgenus are
superficially very similar the diagnoses rely heavily on features of the male pregeni-
tal abdomen and male genitalia (e.g., subgenital plate, right conjunctival appendage).
Additionally, we provide a key to species based on males, digital images of habitus and
subgenital plates, and line drawings of genitalic diagnostic features. A distribution map
for species of the subgenus is also provided.
Databasing
A matrix-code label with specimen identifier, consisting of a unique combination of an
eight-digit number and the prefix “UCR_ENT” was attached to each specimen, and
databased using the PBI instance of the Arthropod Easy Capture database served from
the AMNH https://research.amnh.org/pbi/locality/.
Maps
The distributional maps were created using QGIS v3.14 (https://www.qgis.org/) by
importing coordinates of specimens from the PBI database and from the specimen
labels.
Terminology
Terminology and abbreviations follow Leon & Weirauch (2016b) for general mor-
phology, Knyshov et al. (2020) for wing venation and Knyshov et al. (2018) for male
genitalic features.
Results
Taxonomy
Schizoptera (Zygophleps) McAtee and Malloch, 1925
Schizoptera (Zygophleps) McAtee and Malloch, 1925: 67, 18 (orig. descr.).
Type species: Schizoptera (Zygophleps) unica McAtee and Malloch, 1925, by original
designation
Diagnosis. Distinguished from other Schizopteridae by the posterolateral spine on
the metepisternum, the glabrous ventral margin of the metepisternum, the trapezoidal
shape of the discal cell of the forewing (Fig. 1A), the asymmetrical subgenital plate
(sternum 7) (Fig. 1G–H), the 90º rotation of the pygophore to the right of the dorsal
body plane, and the presence of two asymmetrical conjunctival appendages in males
(Fig. 1D–E). Distinguished from all other Schizoptera subgenera by the triangular
shape of the posterior membranal cell (dc1) of the forewing (Fig. 1A, black ellipse).
Re-description. Male. Body length ranging from 1.15 to 1.58 mm, body shape
ovoid, macropterous (Figs 2–10). COLORATION: Antennae yellow; head and thorax
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 5
brown to dark brown; pronotum and scutellum brown to dark brown; legs yellow;
forewings anteriorly brown to dark brown, posteriorly pale brown; Sc + C concolorous
with or slightly lighter than remainder of hemelytron; hindwings hyaline; abdomen
brown to dark brown; right paramere either entirely concolorous (Figure 1B) or pro-
gressively darker toward apex. SURFACE and VESTITURE: Head and thorax with
dense cover of microtrichia; head, pronotum and wing veins with short to medium-
length light brown setae; clypeus and labium without microtrichia and with long setae;
numerous rounded muscle scars on frons; abdomen densely covered with long setae.
STRUCTURE: HEAD: flat or rounded in lateral view (Figs 8–10); ocelli roughly
equal in size to one ommatidium, positioned close to the margin of compound eye;
labium 3-segmented, last segment tapering. THORAX: pronotal collar pronounced,
approximately 1/7 length of pronotum; pronotum trapezoidal; scutellum triangular,
tip rounded; hemelytron distinctly punctate; costa+subcosta (C+Sc) enlarged; posterior
costal cell (rc1) squared; margins of wing veins outlined with small areoles; apex of wing
membranous with distinct cell-like sculpture; posterior membranal cell triangular (dc1,
Fig. 1A); metepisternum sculpted into a spine; ventral margin of metepisternum dif-
ferentiated into a narrow, glabrous shining groove; metasternal spine robust, elongate
and tapering to a point; hind coxa with well-developed adhesive pad; tarsal formula 3-3-
3; pretarsus with setiform parempodia; fore- and mid-tarsi with arolia. ABDOMEN:
with five visible sterna corresponding to segments 2 + 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7; subgenital plate
(enlarged sternum 7, st7) asymmetrical, modified into a subgenital plate with a single
lateral process on left side, posterior margin rounded or blunt (Figs 1G–H); medi-
otergites of pregenital abdomen equally sclerotized; mediotergite 7 (mt7) rectangular;
mediotergite 8 rectangular (mt8), slightly asymmetrical; length of mt8 about 3/4 pf
the length of mt7; three pairs of spiracles on segments 6–8. GENITALIA: pygophore
(py) rotated 90º to the right, open dorsally; parameres asymmetrical; right paramere
(rp) sickle shaped, with a robust base and elongate stem (Fig. 1B); left paramere (lp)
smaller than right, roughly quadrate, with two lobe-like processes (Fig. 1C); right con-
junctival appendage (rca) with base enlarged, flattened laterally, slightly tapering toward
apex, curved, branched or unbranched, with or without spines (Fig. 1D); left conjunc-
tival appendage (lca) smaller than right, with two arm-like projections of different sizes
(except in S. aculeata sp.n., S. cassiae sp.n., S. inaequalis sp.n., and S. magnifica sp.n.)
(Fig. 1E); vesica (v) coiled, forming four to six coils, tubular, thin, slightly tapering
toward apex (Fig. 1F); anophore (ano) well sclerotized; anal tube (at) membranous.
Female. Body length ranging from 1.23 to 1.51 mm, body shape ovoid, macropter-
ous (Fig. 11A–C). COLORATION and SURFACE and VESTITURE. As in male.
STRUCTURE. As in male, except by the tarsal formula 2-2-3, arolia absent; ster-
num 7 symmetrical, longer than preceding sterna, (Fig. 11E). GENITALIA. sternum
7 symmetrical; ovipositor vestigial; spermathecal gland (spgl) small and ellipsoidal;
spermathecal gland duct (spgd) straight; spermathecal reservoir (spr) bean-shaped, nar-
rower at the base and wider at apex; spermathecal duct (spd) long, thick, narrowing at
apex, coiled, forming five to six coils (Fig. 11H).
Distribution. Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guatemala,
Peru, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
6 DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029
Fig. 1. Diagnostic features of S. (Zygophleps) spp. A. Forewing (black ellipse showing the triangular shape
of the posterior membranal cell). B–J. Male. B. Right paramere (black arrow showing the median groove).
C. Left paramere. D. Right conjunctival appendage. E. Left conjunctival appendage (black arrows show-
ing the arm-like projections). F. Aedeagus. G–H Sternum 6 and the subgenital plate (sternum 7) (black
circle showing the posterolateral process of sternum 6). I–J Detail of the posterolateral process of sternum
6. Abbreviations: An1 = first anal vein, bc = basal cell, C = costa, Cu = cubitus, dc = discal cell, M = media,
R1 = first radial vein, R2 = second radial vein, rc1 = first radial cell, Sc = subcosta, scc = sub costal cell, tc
= trapezoidal cell.
– Right conjunctival appendage unbranched (Figs 21, 22, e.g., S. knyshovi sp.n.,
S. speira sp.n.) ................................................................................................. 15
13. Process of subgenital plate claw-shaped (Fig. 12) ...................... S. corallia Emsley
– Process of subgenital plate long and straight (Figs 13, 15, S. furcata sp.n., S. stricta
sp.n.) .............................................................................................................. 14
14. Branches of right conjunctival appendage of same length and thin (Fig. 21) ........
..................................................................................................... S. furcata sp.n.
– Branches of right conjunctival appendage of different lengths and thick (Fig. 22)
....................................................................................................... S. stricta sp.n.
15. Right conjunctival appendage without spines (except in some specimens of S. kny-
shovi sp.n. that can have a small median spine on the margin) (Figs 20, 21, e.g.,
S. costarriquenha sp.n., S. inca sp.n.) .............................................................. 16
– Right conjunctival appendage with spines (Figs 20, 22, e.g., S. biancae sp.n.,
S. speira sp.n.) ................................................................................................. 20
16. Process of subgenital plate not laterally expanded on apex; anterolaterally directed
with wide base (Fig. 13) ................................................................... S. inca sp.n.
– Process of subgenital plate laterally expanded on apex; laterally directed with
narrow base (Figs 13, 14, e.g., S. falcata sp.n., S. knyshovi sp.n., S. paraensis sp.n.)
........................................................................................................................ 17
17. Process of subgenital plate “axe blade”-shaped (Fig. 13, S. falcata sp.n.) or “fish-
tail” shaped (Fig. 13, S. knyshovi sp.n.) ............................................................ 18
– Process of the subgenital plate oblong (Fig. 12, S. costarriquenha sp.n.) or heart-
shaped (Fig. 14, S. paraensis sp.n.) ................................................................... 19
18. Process of subgenital plate “axe blade”-shaped (Fig. 13) ............... S. falcata sp.n.
– Process of subgenital plate “fishtail”-shaped (Fig. 13) ................. S. knyshovi sp.n.
19. Process of subgenital plate oblong (Fig. 12) ...................... S. costarriquenha sp.n.
– Process of subgenital plate heart-shaped (Fig. 14) ...................... S. paraensis sp.n.
20. Right conjunctival appendage coiled (Fig. 22) ............................... S. speira sp.n.
– Right conjunctival appendage not coiled (Figs 20, 21, e.g., S. biancae sp.n.,
S. mcateei sp.n.) ............................................................................................. 21
21. Right conjunctival appendage surface with areolate sculptures (Fig. 21) ...............
.................................................................................................... S. mcateei sp.n.
– Right conjunctival appendage surface without areolate sculptures (Fig. 20 e.g.,
S. biancae sp.n., S. erwini sp.n.) ...................................................................... 22
22. Right conjunctival appendage without spines on surface (Figs 20, 21, e.g., S. bian-
cae sp.n., S. orellanensis sp.n.) ......................................................................... 23
– Right conjunctival appendage with spines on surface (Figs 20, 21, 22, e.g., S. cus-
pida sp.n., S. erwini sp.n., S. familia sp.n., S. pinduca sp.n.) ............................ 28
23. Process of subgenital plate goblet-shaped (Figs 12, 14, S. biancae sp.n., S. pichin-
cha sp.n.) ........................................................................................................ 24
– Process of subgenital plate thumb-like (Fig. 14, S. orellanensis sp.n.), trapezoidal
(Fig. 14, S. prima sp.n.), rectangular (Fig. 14, S. priva sp.n.) or roughly quadrate
(Fig. 15, S. ultima Emsley), but not goblet-shaped ........................................... 25
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 9
24. Posterior margin of process of subgenital plate small, not clearly distinguishable
(Fig. 12); serrated margin of right conjunctival appendage composed of medium-
sized spines (Fig. 20); Costa Rica (Fig. 23) ................................... S. biancae sp.n.
– Posterior margin of process of subgenital plate long, clearly distinguishable (Fig.
14); serrated margin of right conjunctival appendage composed of long spines
(Fig. 21); Ecuador (Fig. 23) ....................................................... S. pichincha sp.n.
25. Process of subgenital plate thumb-like or trapezoidal (Fig. 14, S. orellanensis sp.n.,
S. prima sp.n.) ................................................................................................ 26
– Process of subgenital plate rectangular or roughly quadrate (Figs 14, 15, S. priva
sp.n., S. ultima Emsley) .................................................................................. 27
26. Process of subgenital plate thumb-like (Fig. 14, black square) ...............................
.............................................................................................. S. orellanensis sp.n.
– Process of subgenital plate trapezoidal (Fig. 14) ............................. S. prima sp.n.
27. Process of subgenital plate rectangular with median concavity on lateral margin
(Fig. 14, black arrow), small (Fig. 14) .............................................. S. priva sp.n.
– Process of subgenital plate roughly quadrate without median concavity, large
(Fig. 15) .................................................................................... S. ultima Emsley
28. Right conjunctival appendage surface with short serrate lines (Figs 20, 22,
S. erwini sp.n., S. pinduca sp.n.) ..................................................................... 29
– Right conjunctival appendage surface without short serrate lines (Figs 21, 22, e.g.,
S. familia sp.n., S. magnifica sp.n., S. solitaria sp.n.) ....................................... 30
29. Process of subgenital plate roughly rectangular (Fig. 13) ............... S. erwini sp.n.
– Process of subgenital plate spatulated (Fig. 14) ............................ S. pinduca sp.n.
30. Right conjunctival appendage without serrated margin; cluster of spines present
solely at apex (Figs 20, 21, e.g., S. ecuadoriana sp.n., S. familia sp.n.) ............. 31
– Right conjunctival appendage with serrated margin; cluster of spines present along
the surface (Figs 20, 21, e.g., S. cuspida sp.n., S. magnifica sp.n.) ................... 33
31. Right conjunctival appendage with long median spine on margin (Fig. 21) .........
.................................................................................................... S. familia sp.n.
– Right conjunctival appendage without median spine on margin (Fig. 20, S. ecua-
doriana sp.n., S. elegantissima sp.n.) ............................................................... 32
32. Process of subgenital plate shorter, broader, with anterior margin less projected
than S. elegantissima sp.n. (Fig. 12) ..................................... S. ecuadoriana sp.n.
– Process of subgenital plate longer, narrower, with anterior margin more projected
than S. ecuadoriana sp.n. (Fig. 12) ....................................... S. elegantissima sp.n.
33. Process of subgenital plate acute on apex (Fig. 12) ...................... S. cuspida sp.n.
– Process of subgenital plate truncate on apex (Figs 12, 13, e.g., S. cassiae sp.n., S. emsleyi
sp.n., S. magnifica sp.n.) ...……………………………………………………34
34. Process of subgenital plate remarkably enlarged, wider than long (Figs 13, 14, S.
magnifica sp.n., S. solitaria sp.n.) .................................................................... 35
– Process of subgenital plate not enlarged, longer than wide or as long as wide (Fig.
12, e.g., S. cassiae sp.n., S. emsleyi sp.n.) .......................................................... 36
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
10 DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029
–35. Right conjunctival appendage with spines along entire distal half (Fig. 21) ..........
................................................................................................. S. magnifica sp.n.
– Right conjunctival appendage with spines solely at apex (Fig. 22) ........ S. solitaria
sp.n.
36. Process of subgenital plate remarkably elongated, about three times longer than
wide (Fig. 12) ............................................................................... S. emsleyi sp.n.
– Process of subgenital plate not elongated, as long as wide (Fig. 12, e.g., S. bella
sp.n., S. cassiae sp.n.) ...................................................................................... 37
37. Process of subgenital plate with tooth-like projection on posterior margin (Fig.
12, black arrow, S. bella sp.n., S. confusa sp.n.) .............................................. 38
– Process of subgenital plate without tooth-like projection on posterior margin
(Fig. 12) ....................................................................................... S. cassiae sp.n.
38. Process of subgenital plate with 1 tooth-like projection at apex (Fig. 12) ..............
........................................................................................................ S. bella sp.n.
– Process of subgenital plate with 2 or 3 tooth-like projections at apex (Fig. 12) .....
.................................................................................................... S. confusa sp.n.
of subgenital plate (Fig. 12); subgenital plate weakly asymmetrical, posterior margin
blunt (Fig. 12). GENITALIA: py as in subgeneric description; rp large, with a deep
median groove, flattened dorsoventrally, apex with two lateral projections (Fig. 16);
lp as in subgeneric description; lca with one arm-like projection; v, ano, and at as in
subgeneric description.
Female. Unknown.
Distribution (Fig. 23). ECUADOR: Orellana.
Etymology. Named for the needle-shaped process of the subgenital plate after the
Latin “aculeata” meaning needle.
Comments. This species resembles S. inaequalis sp.n. in the shape of the subgenital
plate and its process, however the two species differ in the shape of the branches of
the right conjunctival appendages. While S. aculeata sp.n. has branches of the same
length, S. inaequalis sp.n. has branches of different lengths.
(Fig. 12); subgenital plate weakly asymmetrical, posterior margin rounded (Fig. 12).
GENITALIA: py as in subgeneric description; rp small, with a shallow median groove,
apex short, slightly curved and rounded (Fig. 16); lp as in subgeneric description; lca
with the large projection about two times longer than the small; v, ano, and at as in
subgeneric description.
Female. Unknown.
Distribution (Fig. 23). BRAZIL: Rondônia; ECUADOR: Orellana.
Etymology. Named for the beauty of this species after the Latin “bellus” meaning
beautiful.
Comments. The process of the subgenital plate distinguishes this species from all
other species in this subgenus.
Comments. This species shares with S. pichincha sp.n. the unique shape of the right
paramere. However, the two species can be distinguished based on the shape of the
process of the subgenital plate and the right conjunctival appendage.
holotype] (Fig. 16, adapted from Emsley (1969)), and the long, thin, roughly straight,
and branched right conjunctival appendage with branches of about same length and
armed with spines on apex (Fig. 20).
Measurements: Total length: 1.50 mm; pronotum length:? mm; pronotum width:?
mm; scutellum length: 0.15 mm; abdominal width: 0.60 mm [question marks (?) stand
for body parts that could not be measured given their position on the slide].
Material examined (n = 1): HOLOTYPE: TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Arima
Valley: William Beebe Tropical Research Station, at light, 29 Sep 1961, M. G. Emsley,
1♂ (AMNH_IZC 00150327) (AMNH).
Re-description. Male. COLORATION: General coloration brown; C+Sc con-
colorous with remainder of hemelytra. SURFACE and VESTITURE: as in subgeneric
description. STRUCTURE: THORAX: as in subgeneric description. ABDOMEN:
as in subgeneric description; sternum 6 weakly asymmetrical with a medium-sized
posterolateral triangular process projecting from the anterolateral margin of subgenital
plate (Fig. 12); subgenital plate weakly asymmetrical, posterior margin rounded (Fig.
12). GENITALIA: py as in subgeneric description; lp as in subgeneric description; lca
with the large projection about two times longer than the small; v, ano, and at as in
subgeneric description.
Female. Unknown.
Distribution (Fig. 23). TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Arima Valley.
Comments. Emsley (1969) described this species from Trinidad based on a single
male specimen. He mentioned the distinct shape of the process of the subgenital plate
and right conjunctival appendage among species of S. (Zygophleps). These two features
set apart S. corallia from all other species of this subgenus, except for S. ramosa sp.n.,
and we initially suspected that specimens assigned to the two species may be conspe-
cific. However, while the right paramere of the holotype of S. corallia is missing and
we were unable to examine it directly, the drawing by Emsley (reproduced here in Fig.
16) shows that it is very different from the right paramere in S. ramosa sp.n. For this
reason, we consider the two as different species.
Etymology. Named after the country where the species was collected after the word
“ecuadoriana” meaning from Ecuador.
Comments. The triangular process of the subgenital plate is unique among species
of this subgenus.
Female. Unknown.
Distribution (Fig. 23). ECUADOR: Orellana.
Etymology. Named in Honor of Dr. Terry Erwin, who collected several species of
S. (Zygophleps) herein described.
Comments. This species resembles S. peruviana sp.n. and S. priva sp.n. in having
a similar process of the subgenital plate. However, these species can be easily distin-
guished from each other based on the shape of the right conjunctival appendage.
Comments. This species resembles S. applanata sp.n. and S. mallochi sp.n. in hav-
ing a similar process of the subgenital plate. Nevertheless, these species can be distin-
guished based on the shape of the right conjunctival appendage. The margin of the
right conjunctival appendage is not serrated in S. falcata sp.n., while it is serrated in S.
applanata sp.n. and S. mallochi sp.n.
large projection about two times longer than the small; v, ano, and at as in subgeneric
description.
Female. Unknown.
Distribution (Fig. 23). ECUADOR: Orellana.
Etymology. Named in Honor of Dr. Alexander Knyshov, a friend and expert
on Heteroptera, who has made important contributions to the knowledge of
Dipsocoromorpha.
Comments. This species shows variation of the right conjunctival appendage. Some
specimens have a spineless right conjunctival appendage while others have a small
median spine on the margin. Molecular data retrieved from specimens showing this
variation (Albuquerque et al., in preparation) support them as belonging to the same
species.
(Fig. 14); subgenital plate weakly asymmetrical, posterior margin rounded (Fig. 14).
GENITALIA: py as in subgeneric description; rp small, with a deep median groove,
apex medium-sized, weakly curved and rounded (Fig. 18); lp as in subgeneric descrip-
tion; lca with the large projection about three times longer than the small; v, ano, and
at as in subgeneric description.
Female. Unknown.
Distribution (Fig. 23). ECUADOR: Orellana.
Etymology. Named for the locality where the species was collected.
Comments. See comments on S. hirsuta sp.n.
composer from the north of Brazil famous for Carimbó, a traditional dance from the
state of Pará, Brazil, which has African, indigenous, and European roots, and is one of
the cultural icons of this region.
Comments. This species was collected in a secondary forest using CDC traps
installed 20 meters above the ground, suggesting that these insects are capable of flight
at relatively high heights despite their minute size.
anterior and posterior margins rounded (Fig. 14), and the short, thin, and unbranched
right conjunctival appendage with a serrated margin (Fig. 22).
Measurements: Total length: 1.18 mm; pronotum length: 0.21 mm; pronotum
width: 0.50 mm; scutellum length: 0.14 mm; abdominal width: 0.42 mm.
Material examined (n = 1): HOLOTYPE: COSTA RICA: Heredia: La Selva
Biological Station, 10.43333°N 84.01667°W, 56 m, 05 Jan 2000, ALAS, Eugenia sp.
(Myrtaceae), 1♂ (UCR_ENT 00109296) (INBIO).
Description. Male (Figs 3, 6, 9). COLORATION: General coloration brown; C+Sc
slightly lighter than remainder of hemelytra (Fig. 3); rp entirely pale brown. SURFACE
and VESTITURE: as in subgeneric description. STRUCTURE: HEAD: rounded
in lateral view (Fig. 9). THORAX: as in subgeneric description. ABDOMEN: as in
subgeneric description; sternum 6 weakly asymmetrical with a small triangular pos-
terolateral process projecting from the anterolateral margin of the subgenital plate
(Fig. 14); subgenital plate weakly asymmetrical, posterior margin rounded (Fig. 14).
GENITALIA: py as in subgeneric description; rp small, with a deep median groove,
apex long, curved and pointed (Fig. 19); lp as in subgeneric description; lca with the
large projection about three times longer than the small; v, ano, and at as in subgeneric
description.
Female. Unknown.
Distribution (Fig. 23). COSTA RICA: Heredia.
Etymology. Named for the fact that this species is known just from the holotype
after the Latin “privus” meaning single.
Comments. See comments on S. erwini sp.n.
description; lca with the large projection about three times longer than the small; v,
ano, and at as in subgeneric description.
Female. Unknown.
Distribution (Fig. 23). BRAZIL: Pará; FRENCH GUIANA: Roura; SURINAME:
Brokopondo; TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Arima Valley.
Comments. Emsley (1969) described this species from Trinidad based on male
specimens. We here redescribe S. simla Emsley and expand its distribution to Brazil,
French Guiana, and Suriname. The Brazilian specimen was collected in a secondary
forest using CDC traps installed ten meters above the ground. This species resembles
S. familia sp.n. in having a similar process of the subgenital plate and right conjunc-
tival appendage. However, they can be distinguished by the presence or absence of a
median spine on the margin of the right conjunctival appendage. The spine is absent
in S. simla, while it is present in S. familia sp.n. Additionally, S. familia sp.n. is only
recorded from Ecuador.
Fig. 2. Habitus images of S. (Zygophleps) spp. in dorsal view. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 43
Fig. 3. Habitus images of S. (Zygophleps) spp. in dorsal view. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
44 DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029
Fig. 4. Habitus images of S. (Zygophleps) spp. in dorsal view. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 45
Fig. 5. Habitus images of S. (Zygophleps) spp. in ventral view. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
46 DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029
Fig. 6. Habitus images of S. (Zygophleps) spp. in ventral view. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 47
Fig. 7. Habitus images of S. (Zygophleps) spp. in ventral view. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
48 DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029
Fig. 8. Habitus images of S. (Zygophleps) spp. in left lateral view. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 49
Fig. 9. Habitus images of S. (Zygophleps) spp. in left lateral view. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
50 DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029
Fig. 10. Habitus images of S. (Zygophleps) spp. in left lateral view. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 51
Fig. 11. Female of S. (Zygophleps) inca sp.n. A–C Habitus images. A. Dorsal view. B. Ventral view. C.
Lateral view. D–G Abdomen. D. Ventral view (red arrow showing the silhouette of an egg; blue arrow
showing the silhouette of the spermatheca). E. Ventral view. F. Dorsal view. G. Right lateral view. H.
Spermatheca. Abbreviations: at = anal tube, spd = spermathecal duct, spgl = spermathecal gland, spgld =
spermathecal gland duct, spr = spermathecal reservoir, st7 = sternite 7, t7 = tergite 7, t8 = tergite 8, t9 =
tergite 9. Scale bars: 0.5 mm (A–C); 0.1 mm (D–H).
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
52 DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029
Fig. 12. Images of abdominal apex showing the diagnostic features of sternum 6 and the subgenital plate
(sternum 7) of S. (Zygophleps) spp., ventral view (black arrow showing the tooth-like projection; black
rectangle showing the morphological variation of the process of the subgenital plate). Scale bar: 0.1 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 53
Fig. 13. Images of abdominal apex showing the diagnostic features of sternum 6 and the subgenital plate
(sternum 7) of S. (Zygophleps) spp., ventral view. Scale bar: 0.1 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
54 DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029
Fig. 14. Images of abdominal apex showing the diagnostic features of sternum 6 and the subgenital
plate (sternum 7) of S. (Zygophleps) spp., ventral view (black square showing the thumb-like process of the
subgenital plate; black arrow showing the median concavity). Scale bar: 0.1 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 55
Fig. 15. Images of abdominal apex showing the diagnostic features of sternum 6 and the subgenital plate
(sternum 7) of S. (Zygophleps) spp., ventral view. Scale bar: 0.1 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
56 DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029
Fig. 16. Line drawings of the right paramere of S. (Zygophleps) spp. Scale bars: 0.05 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 57
Fig. 17. Line drawings of the right paramere of S. (Zygophleps) spp. Scale bars: 0.05 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
58 DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029
Fig. 18. Line drawings of the right paramere of S. (Zygophleps) spp. Scale bars: 0.05 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 59
Fig. 19. Line drawings of the right paramere of S. (Zygophleps) spp. Scale bars: 0.05 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
60 DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029
Fig. 20. Line drawings of the right conjunctival appendage of S. (Zygophleps) spp. Scale bars: 0.05 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 61
Fig. 21. Line drawings of the right conjunctival appendage of S. (Zygophleps) spp. Scale bars: 0.05 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
62 DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029
Fig. 22. Line drawings of the right conjunctival appendage of S. (Zygophleps) spp. Scale bars: 0.05 mm.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 63
Conclusions
Molecular phylogenetic analyses of Schizoptera show that S. (Zygophleps) is mono-
phyletic (Leon & Weirauch 2017; Albuquerque et al., in prep.). Despite the ten-fold
increase of described species in this subgenus, the triangular shape of the posterior
membranal cell (Fig. 1A) remains an excellent diagnostic feature for this taxon. Species
of this subgenus are characterized by very similar habitus and somatic morphological
features, which can make identification difficult. However, the morphological diversity
of the male subgenital plate and genitalia are astounding in this subgenus and provide
reliable species-diagnostic characters. In particular, the shape of the process of the sub-
genital plate, right paramere and right conjunctival appendage are crucial in determin-
ing species-level identification.
Our taxonomic revision of S. (Zygophleps) considerably improved our knowledge of
the distribution patterns of this group. Despite the substantial number of new species
for this taxon, several of these species were collected in the same locality (particularly
Heredia and Orellana in Costa Rica and Ecuador, respectively) (Fig. 23). The patterns
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
64 DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029
herein observed along with field observations and collection data suggest that S.
(Zygophleps) species might be active fliers. Ultimately, the distributional gaps observed
are likely due to the lack of material from many areas in Central and South America.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Alexander Knyshov (UCR) and Rochelle Hoey-Chamberlain (UCR) for
their extremely helpful comments during the development of this project. Thanks to
Caroline Souza and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments on the manu-
script. The authors are grateful the Brazilian Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento
Científico e Tecnológico-CNPq for financial support (CNPq UNIVERSAL
420294/2016-3, FRAA 140079/2018-1, JAMF 311345/2018-2) and The Comissão
Fulbright Brasil. We also thank the Norsk-Hydro bauxite mine and the Biodiversity
Research Consortium Brazil-Norway (BRC) for support. This project is part of the
“ARTS: Litter Bugs: revisionary and phylogenetic research on the least studied true
bug infraorder (Insecta: Hemiptera: Dipsocoromorpha)” project supported by the
National Science Foundation DEB-1257702.
References
Almeida, F.R.A., Carvalho-Filho, F.S. & Fernandes, J.A.M. (2019) A new species of Hypsohapsis
(Heteroptera: Schizopteridae: Hypselosomatinae) from the Brazilian Amazon. Zootaxa 4551 (4):
463–470.
Emsley, M.G. (1969) The Schizopteridae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) with the descriptions of new species
from Trinidad. Memoirs of the American Entomological Society 25: 1–154.
Knyshov, A., Hoey-Chamberlain, R. & Weirauch, C. (2018) Comparative morphology of male genitalic
structures in the minute litter bugs Dipsocoromorpha (Insecta: Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Journal of
Morphology 279: 1480–1517.
Knyshov, A., Weirauch, C. & Hoey-Chamberlain, R. (2020) Phylogenetic relationships and revised clas-
sification of the true bug infraorder Dipsocoromorpha (Insecta: Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Cladistics
1–28.
Leon, S. & Weirauch, C. (2016a) Small bugs, big changes: taxonomic revision of Orthorhagus McAtee &
Malloch. Neotropical Entomology 45: 1–14.
Leon, S. and Weirauch, C. (2016b) Scratching the surface? Taxonomic revision of the subgenus Schizoptera
(Odontorhagus) reveals vast undocumented biodiversity in the largest litter bug genus Schizoptera
Fieber (Hemiptera: Dipsocoromorpha). Zootaxa 4184 (2): 255–284.
Leon, S. & Weirauch, C. (2017) Molecular phylogeny informs generic and subgeneric concepts in the
Schizoptera Fieber genus group (Heteroptera: Schizopteridae) and reveals multiple origins of female-
specific elytra. Invertebrate Systematics 31: 191–207.
McAtee¸ W.L. & Malloch, J.R. (1925) Revision of bugs of the family Cryptostemmatidae in the collection
of the United States National Museum. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 67: 1–42.
Schuh, R.T. & Weirauch, C. (2020) True bugs of the world (Hemiptera: Heteroptera): classification and
natural history (Second Edition). Siri Scientific Press, Manchester, United Kingdom: 800 pp.
Weirauch, C. & Štys, P. (2014) Litter bugs exposed: phylogenetic relationships of Dipsocoromorpha
(Hemiptera: Heteroptera) based on molecular data. Insect Systematics & Evolution 45: 1–20.
F. Albuquerque et al. / Insect Systematics & Evolution (2022)
DOI 10.1163/1876312X-bja10029 65
Weirauch, C. & Fernandes, J.A.M. (2015) The minute litter bugs (Dipsocoromorpha). In: Panizzi,
A.R. & Grazia, J. (eds.), True bugs (Heteroptera) of the Neotropics. vol. 2. Springer, Rotterdam,
Netherlands: pp. 99–112.
Weirauch, C., Whorrall, K., Knyshov, A. & Hoey-Chamberlain, R. (2018) Giant among dwarfs:
Meganannus lewisi, gen. n. and sp.n., a new genus and species of minute litter bugs from Costa Rica
(Hemiptera: Schizopteridae). Zootaxa 4370 (2): 156–170.